Re: [Log4j] GitHub Discussions

[Matt Sicker]

+1

We can use it for user forums while still maintaining dev@ for development.

> On Aug 24, 2023, at 2:26 AM, Volkan Yazıcı  wrote:
> 
> Piotr shared a very good observation (in a private Slack post
> ) that
> users ask questions in GitHub Issues, we point them to the mailing list,
> and they disappear. See this ticket
>  for an example.
> Consequently, Matt proposed using GitHub Discussions. Robert added Pulser
> already has it enabled . I
> think many users are more keen on forums, GitHub, StackOverflow, etc. We
> should position ourselves where our users expect us to be. In that
> regard, *GitHub
> Discussions sounds like a great idea and I propose experimenting with it*:
> 
>   - Enable GitHub Actions
>   - Update our support page accordingly
>   - Update README
> 
> One would think this should be a matter of a `.asf.yaml` one-liner, but it
> is not
> 
> :
> 
> *"GitHub Discussions is currently a beta feature and does not have an API
> endpoint. Until this is addressed, please open an Infra Jira ticket with a
> link to a consensus discussion thread for your project."*
> 
> 
> Hence, *I need your approval in the form of a reply to this post*.

Re: [Log4j] GitHub Discussions

[Piotr P. Karwasz]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 at 09:27, Volkan Yazıcı  wrote:
> *"GitHub Discussions is currently a beta feature and does not have an API
> endpoint. Until this is addressed, please open an Infra Jira ticket with a
> link to a consensus discussion thread for your project."*
>
> Hence, *I need your approval in the form of a reply to this post*.

+1,
Piotr

Re: [Log4j] GitHub Discussions

[Gary Gregory]

+1 BUT we should document on our site and on GH that per Apache
requirements,  any decisions must be documented on the mailing list; I
don't know if that includes the decision process. I don't know that we
should or shouldn't get one email per discussion item echoed to a mailing
list.

Gary

On Thu, Aug 24, 2023, 3:26 AM Volkan Yazıcı  wrote:

> Piotr shared a very good observation (in a private Slack post
> ) that
> users ask questions in GitHub Issues, we point them to the mailing list,
> and they disappear. See this ticket
>  for an example.
> Consequently, Matt proposed using GitHub Discussions. Robert added Pulser
> already has it enabled . I
> think many users are more keen on forums, GitHub, StackOverflow, etc. We
> should position ourselves where our users expect us to be. In that
> regard, *GitHub
> Discussions sounds like a great idea and I propose experimenting with it*:
>
>- Enable GitHub Actions
>- Update our support page accordingly
>- Update README
>
> One would think this should be a matter of a `.asf.yaml` one-liner, but it
> is not
> <
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?spaceKey=INFRA=Git+-+.asf.yaml+features#Git.asf.yamlfeatures-GitHubDiscussions
> >
> :
>
> *"GitHub Discussions is currently a beta feature and does not have an API
> endpoint. Until this is addressed, please open an Infra Jira ticket with a
> link to a consensus discussion thread for your project."*
>
>
> Hence, *I need your approval in the form of a reply to this post*.
>

Re: [Log4j] GitHub Discussions

[Apache]

+1

Ralph

> On Aug 24, 2023, at 4:01 AM, Christian Grobmeier  wrote:
> 
> +1
> 
> 
>> On Thu, Aug 24, 2023, at 09:26, Volkan Yazıcı wrote:
>> Piotr shared a very good observation (in a private Slack post
>> ) that
>> users ask questions in GitHub Issues, we point them to the mailing list,
>> and they disappear. See this ticket
>>  for an example.
>> Consequently, Matt proposed using GitHub Discussions. Robert added Pulser
>> already has it enabled . I
>> think many users are more keen on forums, GitHub, StackOverflow, etc. We
>> should position ourselves where our users expect us to be. In that
>> regard, *GitHub
>> Discussions sounds like a great idea and I propose experimenting with it*:
>> 
>>   - Enable GitHub Actions
>>   - Update our support page accordingly
>>   - Update README
>> 
>> One would think this should be a matter of a `.asf.yaml` one-liner, but 
>> it
>> is not
>> 
>> :
>> 
>> *"GitHub Discussions is currently a beta feature and does not have an API
>> endpoint. Until this is addressed, please open an Infra Jira ticket with a
>> link to a consensus discussion thread for your project."*
>> 
>> 
>> Hence, *I need your approval in the form of a reply to this post*.

Re: [Log4j] GitHub Discussions

[Christian Grobmeier]

+1


On Thu, Aug 24, 2023, at 09:26, Volkan Yazıcı wrote:
> Piotr shared a very good observation (in a private Slack post
> ) that
> users ask questions in GitHub Issues, we point them to the mailing list,
> and they disappear. See this ticket
>  for an example.
> Consequently, Matt proposed using GitHub Discussions. Robert added Pulser
> already has it enabled . I
> think many users are more keen on forums, GitHub, StackOverflow, etc. We
> should position ourselves where our users expect us to be. In that
> regard, *GitHub
> Discussions sounds like a great idea and I propose experimenting with it*:
>
>- Enable GitHub Actions
>- Update our support page accordingly
>- Update README
>
> One would think this should be a matter of a `.asf.yaml` one-liner, but 
> it
> is not
> 
> :
>
> *"GitHub Discussions is currently a beta feature and does not have an API
> endpoint. Until this is addressed, please open an Infra Jira ticket with a
> link to a consensus discussion thread for your project."*
>
>
> Hence, *I need your approval in the form of a reply to this post*.

Re: Remove Noise: using commits@?

[Christian Grobmeier]

I am sorry for this message, I double checked after your comments and I think I 
have my client misconfigured. I will correct it 

On Thu, Aug 24, 2023, at 08:54, Ralph Goers wrote:
> I took care of most of the noise ages ago.  I created folders in my 
> email client for GitHub, Jira, general notifications, and SVN (now 
> Git). I then set up filters based on the properties in those emails .
>
> That said, my GitHub folder currently has 1327 unread emails, Jira 567, 
> notifications 233  My logging-dev folder pretty only much gets emails 
> generated by humans.  
>
> Volkan, I haven’t checked but I have a suspicion that some of the 
> emails I DON’T get from you somehow match one of those filters and end 
> up in the wrong folder.
>
> Ralph
>
>> On Aug 23, 2023, at 2:03 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>> 
>> I see things split into notifications@ and commits@. Is the issue with 
>> notifications@?
>> 
>>> On Aug 23, 2023, at 3:19 PM, Robert Middleton  wrote:
>>> 
>>> They already go to the notifications list, is that not sufficient?  I’m
>>> pretty sure that’s how all of the jira notifications are setup.
>>> 
>>> -Robert Middleton
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 4:15 PM Christian Grobmeier 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Should Github notifications go to a separate list? I know there will be
 changes regarding threading for these kind of notifications, but maybe we
 should just use comm...@logging.apache.org for Github stuff?
 
 
>>

[Log4j] GitHub Discussions

[Volkan Yazıcı]

Piotr shared a very good observation (in a private Slack post
) that
users ask questions in GitHub Issues, we point them to the mailing list,
and they disappear. See this ticket
 for an example.
Consequently, Matt proposed using GitHub Discussions. Robert added Pulser
already has it enabled . I
think many users are more keen on forums, GitHub, StackOverflow, etc. We
should position ourselves where our users expect us to be. In that
regard, *GitHub
Discussions sounds like a great idea and I propose experimenting with it*:

   - Enable GitHub Actions
   - Update our support page accordingly
   - Update README

One would think this should be a matter of a `.asf.yaml` one-liner, but it
is not

:

*"GitHub Discussions is currently a beta feature and does not have an API
endpoint. Until this is addressed, please open an Infra Jira ticket with a
link to a consensus discussion thread for your project."*


Hence, *I need your approval in the form of a reply to this post*.

Re: Shared GitHub actions

[Volkan Yazıcı]

Piotr and I are very well aware of reusable GitHub workflows
. As
a matter of fact, that is what I am currently working on: moving all our
shared `pom.xml` (the distribution ZIP creation, signing, changelog
management, etc.) and GitHub workflow (`build.yml`, etc.) boilerplate to
`logging-parent` and *reusing* it in `logging-log4j-tools` to cut a
release. In our last video call – we missed you Matt ;) – I agreed with
Ralph to PoC this and share the results in `dev@` and upon consensus
practice this on `logging-log4j2`.

On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 11:09 PM Matt Sicker  wrote:

> Something that may be relevant as we split up repos more and have more
> actions defined.
>
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: Slawomir Jaranowski 
> > Subject: Shared GitHub actions
> > Date: August 19, 2023 at 10:17:58 AM CDT
> > To: Commons Developers List 
> > Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" 
> > List-Id: 
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I see that Apache Commons projects use GitHub actions ...
> > In every project actions is defined from scratch, it looks very similar,
> > like:
> >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/commons-parent/blob/master/.github/workflows/maven.yml
> >
> https://github.com/apache/commons-codec/blob/master/.github/workflows/maven.yml
> >
> https://github.com/apache/commons-cli/blob/master/.github/workflows/maven.yml
> >
> > Maintaining such resources in each project separately can waste time ...
> >
> > I have introduced shared GitHub actions  in Maven projects and can help
> to
> > do similar tasks in Commons projects.
> > https://github.com/apache/maven-gh-actions-shared
> >
> > Of course each project can have its own requirements and it will be
> > reasonable to have separate shared actions for Commons projects.
> >
> > If you are interested let me know and we can start working on it in some
> > example projects.
> >
> > --
> > Sławomir Jaranowski
>
>

Re: Remove Noise: using commits@?

[Ralph Goers]

I took care of most of the noise ages ago.  I created folders in my email 
client for GitHub, Jira, general notifications, and SVN (now Git). I then set 
up filters based on the properties in those emails .

That said, my GitHub folder currently has 1327 unread emails, Jira 567, 
notifications 233  My logging-dev folder pretty only much gets emails generated 
by humans.  

Volkan, I haven’t checked but I have a suspicion that some of the emails I 
DON’T get from you somehow match one of those filters and end up in the wrong 
folder.

Ralph

> On Aug 23, 2023, at 2:03 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> 
> I see things split into notifications@ and commits@. Is the issue with 
> notifications@?
> 
>> On Aug 23, 2023, at 3:19 PM, Robert Middleton  wrote:
>> 
>> They already go to the notifications list, is that not sufficient?  I’m
>> pretty sure that’s how all of the jira notifications are setup.
>> 
>> -Robert Middleton
>> 
>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 4:15 PM Christian Grobmeier 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Should Github notifications go to a separate list? I know there will be
>>> changes regarding threading for these kind of notifications, but maybe we
>>> should just use comm...@logging.apache.org for Github stuff?
>>> 
>>> 
>